Axis of Bob

Pretty much because he was playing as an undersized ruckman in a TAC team, I would assume. Not many of them get drafted. He's also not the world's silkiest kick, but he's got a big tank and a good head on his shoulders.

Oh, and Katich must be some sort of tool. It was interesting to hear the response from Clarke. He said all the right things, but he also mentioned the dressing room harmony being important. Don't need to read very far between the lines there.

I was watching the game. It was a game decided by the toss and the first 10 overs of Victoria's innings. Starc and Hazelwood bowled brilliantly early and Victoria was lucky to only be one down. The ball was swinging around and batting was tough going. The Victorian openers had to do their best to survive and we lost 4 early wickets before the pitch settled down. Once the pitch settled down it was a batting paradise. Hodge and Quiney did as they pleased on the postage stamp of a ground and a pitch that may as well have had lane markings. The NSW innings was just more of the same and bowling was near impossible. Hazelwood (especially) and Starc are very promising young bowlers. Starc has all the tools to be really good, but sprays it around at the moment. Hopefully with maturity he can get more consistency. Hazelwood will be a star. Giant of a kid, bowls mid-130s and hits the seam regularly. He is as close to Glenn McGrath as you could get. He'll be a regular national bowler if he stays fit. For the Vics it was only Herrick that looked to have any penetration, although he tends to spray it around a bit.

I don't think he has been underrated. I think he's where he should be ... as one of the 10 best cricketers this country has ever produced. I think Border was better, IMO, because he was a class above his team mates and faced some of the best bowling there has ever been. Ponting is better than Border. Gilchrist I think is over rated, but he did change the way the game is played. Miller I would love to have seen, and it's hard to argue with his selection. I believe that bowlers win matches once you get to the very top level. When the best teams play each other they can both bat well and deep - it's the bowlers that set them apart. With that in mind I'm happy with McGrath above Ponting. That said, the Don is still number 1. When you are twice as good as any batsman in history then I think you've earned it! Benaud I think might be a little high, but it's hard when I didn't see him play.

Certainly since I've been around. Being one strike away from losing the series ..... twice ...... and getting crucial hits to stay in the game. Cruz should really have gone harder at that fly ball. If he takes it the Rangers win the whole thing and he can spend the whole winter getting a bruised arm better. As it is, he squibbed it and now they have to face Carpenter in game 7 with a depleted bullpen, away to a team than now has all the momentum. Sometimes you just have to go when it's your turn. He didn't and it could cost them the whole thing. Great game. It had everything.

World Series. Game 6. Just sayin' ......

Yep, it's been a good day of cricket, Jack. We bowled very well. Same as the first match, where we have been relentless in our bowling discipline. Just over 2 and a half an over during the Sri Lankan innings. As for Lyon, I think he has a lot of promise. I like the way he is able to drop the ball on the batsmen. Probably needs to develop a bit of variation, but his stock ball shows good signs. I also thought that Hughes looked very good in the time he and Watson batted before stumps. Very composed against both pace and spin.

That stage was incredible. Evans' chase down on Galibier, both days, may win him the tour. He did it completely by himself from both sides of the Galibier and took 2 minutes the first day and 1.5 the second. Simply incredible stuff. Cadel deserves to win this. He's now in a great spot, but there is a lot of hard, hard work to do.

I don't like people practically giving Evans the Tour already. There are 3 big mountain stages including a mountain top finish at the Alp d'Huez leading into the time trial and the race could be turned on its head on any one of the next 3 days before the time trial. At their best, all of Contador, Andy and Frank Schleck could outclimb Evans. With three big mountain stages, Evans could be knocked out at any stage. That said, Evans' climbing form looks really good. Evans' big weapon is, of course, the time trial. He should beat all of th GC contenders pretty easily, especially Frank Schleck and Voekler. If he is behind any of them by less than about 45 secs going into the TT then he should win, but Contador is probably the best of the rest of the time trialists. That first day crash on an innocuous stage could well be decisive.

Please tell me that 'something' is ' how to spell'.

At least we aren't South Africa! I usually think Peter Roebuck writes shallow emotional rubbish, but he made a good point today in his article. We simply weren't good enough but other teams still feared us. Not because we could bat or bowl, because we couldn't, but because we were Australia and teams knew that we would fight and fight. We fought, but it wasn't enough because we just weren't good enough. Not being good enough is not a problem South Africa has. But they still can't win.

But they didn't need to constrict them, they needed wickets. Last two recognised batsmen at the crease so we needed to break that partnership quickly.

That's what Tait is there for. Picking up a well set Tendulkar who is on 50 during the middle overs. Sure, he's spraying it, but it's tough to find someone that can do that.

If you look at how the team is selected it sends out a very clear message: "We aren't good enough to win the World Cup so we're going to have to fluke it" If we picked a team that had our most solid, effective bowlers and our most clinical batsmen, then we still wouldn't be good enough to beat South Africa. By picking Tait, White, Smith, Krezja etc, we are still unlikely, but if one of them comes off then we are a real chance. Given that, White stays in the team no matter how badly he's hitting it. Why? Because if he does rediscover form in a game then he can single handedly win us a game a la Symonds in 2003. We won't drop Tait for Hastings, (or Bollinger when he was there) because Tait could possibly single handedly win us a game against South Africa if he clicks. Basically we aren't good enough, but if we throw a Hail Mary or two then our chances increase from 0% to something above 0%. Albeit not far above 0%!!

Well done Jack - they're now 2/16. Also, none of the commentators said anything, but I am almost 100% sure that the the opener hit the ball with the first lbw. There was a clear deflection, two noises and the batsman went off holding is bat at the toe end. They barely looked at that when doing the replay, which was the only reason it wasn't given in the first place. Wouldn't have minded the ICC to have included hot spot in the UDRS for the World Cup. Canada would probably be 1 for.

Clarke was unlucky that he got one that didn't bounce and chopped it on. White's was a brain fade. The best news was the form of Ponting. Looked a bit average early but really started looking good for most of his innings. Will be a tough World Cup if they keep producing bunsen burners like that one, though. India were able to play about 10 spinners because of the 11 bat/11 bowl format of the practice matches, so they could play 3 specialist spinners + Yuvraj Singh. They only bowled 9 overs of pace (combining for 1 for 55 at over 6 an over).

I'd laugh pretty hard if Clarke won ODI player of the year. He has averaged over 50 in the past 12 months, so he's a chance.

I would say that Johnson went in because Yardy had come on to bowl and had 1 for 9 in his 3rd over. It only would have been right handers coming in to face the left arm spinner would turned the ball away, so by bringing in Johnson he was able to turn that left arm spinner into a weakness for England rather than a strength. Especially during the Power Play, since Johnson is notoriously harsh on left arm finger spinners with his power to mid wicket. It didn't necessarily pan out that way, but Johnson was there to hit Yardy. Plus Clarke knew that his strength didn't lie in the Power Play overs when he first gets in, so he sent in a hitter. Why not White, Smith or Hussey? Probably because the experiment was for 5 overs, rather than 40 overs. He did't expect Johnson to still be there later when Clarke would be better off knocking the ball around, and he'd rather have his best power batsmen available for the last 10 overs when the foot really needed to go down. I doubt the Johnson decision was inteded for any more than the next 5 overs. Any more than that would have been a bonus.

Really good innings from Clarke. Shows that you don't need to be a massive power hitter to chase down big scores in one day cricket. He was just so intelligent the way he went about the chase - scoring off nearly every ball and then pushing hard for twos. He ran the Poms ragged in the same way that Bevan used to. Just goes to show that you need to give your best players time when they aren't playing well. Clarke is a class batsman who has shown he is good enough over several years. He's still only 29 and has many years of good cricket left in him. Interesting to note that Clarke is the 3rd highest run scorer in this ODI series (behind Trott and Watson). Even when he's out of form, he's still one of the best (if not the best) batsmen in Australia. Hopefully now the cringeworthy media witch hunt can end and we can concentrate the World Cup.

Well, going by your 5 consecutive matches of failures (ie, scores < 20) Michael Clarke would never have been dropped from the one day team. Not a single time. In Tests he would not have been dropped either. Hussey would not have been dropped from Tests (although he'd have gone close a few times, with a few well placed scores between 20 and 30!). You'd have dropped Hussey from ODIs in March 2007 as the only time. Ponting would have been dropped from Tests in 2001 half way through the Ashes. He had 10 scores under 20 in a row. Curiously, he then finished off the series by scoring 144, 72 and then 62. This is our best batsman for some time, and currently 3rd on the overall Test run scorers list. You'd have dropped him from the ODI team in February 2009, June 2008 and October 2006. So, overall, the total ratio of matches per 'WYL dropping' for each of the batsman would be: Mike Hussey (Test average 51, ODI average 52): 210 matches per dropping Ricky Ponting (Test average 54, ODI average 43): 126 matches per dropping Michael Clarke (Test average 46, ODI average 43): never dropped in 254 matches Any further requests? Also, Clarke won't get to play 4 day cricket if he plays club cricket. He'll get one 2 day match a week (possibly just a one dayer or T20). If he stays in the side then he'll get a 4 matches in the next 2 weeks! Just because you use throwaway labels like 'marketeers' to try to personalise your arguments, it doesn't stop your arguments being awful. Each action has a consequence. A one day series that is basically a World Cup tune up is the perfect time for Clarke to try to find some form. I do get it: You don't like Clarke. Probably based on some misguided notion that because he isn't Allan Border he that he doesn't deserve to be captain. Well times are changing and you'd better get used to it otherwise you'll be a very frustrated grumpy old man.

You may not be trying to convert anyone, but you are trying to receive support for your views or some other motivation. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting them on an anonymous internet forum. You want M Hussey to earn his spot back. I'm pretty sure that he has already earned his spot. But your scathing comments about the selectors, who you stated made an error by naming him for the World Cup squad because he would not be fit in time, look foolish in retrospect and continue a pattern of yours for spouting off without considering any evidence than may be present. It ruins every argument you ever make (regardless of whether or not you happen to stumble across the right answer by the 1000 monkey approach). Another example of this is your thought on Michael Clarke. You want him to have gone back to state cricket to play some long innings. How many long innings is he going to play when the states are playing in the Big Bash? Cause and effect. Everything affects something else, but that's too complex for your thinking. Besides, Clarke has captained bloody well so far. Your 5 consecutive match rule is also idiotic. Nothing is as simple as you want to make it and dropping a quality player now due to form would be insane. Why? So he can play Big Bash. A month before the World Cup? He'll play more one day cricket to return to form if he stays with Australia. Form is only ever an innings away, so we should give our best players the opportunity to get that form before the World Cup - not playing state level Twenty20!! Besides, Clarke has only 'failed' (assuming 36 is a failure) in his last 3 matches. Before that he made 50* from 51 balls. Before that two scores in the 20s and before that 111* (in India) and 99*. Your 5 consecutive match rule (using <40 as a failure, since Clarke's 36 does is a 'failure') would have seen Mike Hussey dropped from Tests in October last year (a month before his Ashes series), in January the year before and in June 2008. He'd have been dropped from ODIs in June last year and March 2007. His overall record in ODIs is an average of 52, and 51 in Tests. You'd have dropped Ricky Ponting from the ODI side in June 2010, January 2010, February 2009, June 2008, February 2008, October 2006, February 2005, September 2004, January 2004, August 2003, March 2002, August 1999, April 1999 and November 1996. That's 14 times you would have dropped him in his 352 game career. Do you agree with dropping one of Australia's greatest ever batsmen 14 times in his ODI career? One that has netted us 3 consecutive world Cups? In that same time you would have dropped Clarke 5 times in his 185 ODI career. Extrapolating, you'd have dropped Clarke once every 37 games and Ponting once every 25 games. Does that sit comfortably with you?

The pitches in India for the World Cup are likely to be flat batting paradises. Teams should score lots of runs if history is any guide to the pitches. On these pitches then you need something different from the norm to be able to keep batsmen in check. Simply sending out more fast medium bang 'em in type bowlers is just not going to cut it a lot of the time. So Tait is a gamble on his ability to be dangerous on flat pitches. If he bowls badly then he'll still go for a run a ball like everyone else. But if he bowls well then the opposition is right up against the wall. He's probably not the sort of bowler you want on a slow, seaming pitch because that role could be better performed by the likes of Bollinger, Watson and Hastings, but if you're bowling on a 300+ wicket then Tait would be almost the first bowler picked. I think Clarke is better down the order. But he's just having a really poor trot at the moment because he's out of form. There's no doubt that he'll get back to making runs at some point and when he does he's one of our best. If we are going to win the World Cup then we need Ponting and Clarke in the team and making runs, because they're the cream. If they don't fire then we won't win the tournament, whether they're in the team or out of it. Also, I think Clarke's captaincy so far this ODI series has been absolutely top shelf - now he just needs to make some runs. WYL, the reason why nobody rates your arguments is because (among other things) you are frightfully inconsistent in your rambling and use absolutely no substantive evidence whatsoever. Nobody is compelled to your view because you offer nothing compelling - just emotive rambling and poorly thought out opinions. It's the same in every forum, be it cricket, football, or tiddlywinks. Also you are lucky that the two weeks deleted your views on the selectors naming Mike Hussey. It would have been interesting viewing now that Hussey looks like recovering for the World Cup!!

I'm sorry WYL but you are just making stuff up now that seems like it could be right. It's not. The first of those half centuries was in the first innings in Adelaide. The lower order collapsed around him after a partnership with Mike Hussey, and Haddin was out going for the slog as the last man out with Doug Bollinger at the other end. How was he supposed to convert that into 100? Dougie was going to hang around and make a gritty 30 odd to help Haddin to his century as part of an 80 run partnership for the 10th wicket, was he? The other 50 he made was in the first innings in Perth, where he came in at 5 for 69. You might be able to argue that he could have gone on, but also bear in mind that Prior amassed scores of 10 and 12. Incidentally, 53 would have been top score for England across both innings of that test. People are getting sucked in by the way the series has ended. Prior was poor until his last two innings (and he was given a reprieve early in Melbourne courtesy of a no ball referral), while Haddin had been exceptional. But people only remember what is most recent in their heads. Over the course of the series, Haddin was better. I found that the biggest problem Australia had was simply moving the ball. The England quicks moved the ball, while we (for the most part) did not. There two occasions where we moved the ball noticeably: First innings in Perth and on the 3th day in Melbourne (reverse). No surprise that we bowled England out for under 100 in Perth and took about 5/60 in Melbourne. Johnson very rarely moves it, Siddle is generally up and down and Hilfenhaus was less than threatening this series. Why don't we move it? I don't know, and I doubt that us mug punters could know. But we need to find ways to take wickets on flat pitches.

Yeah, Prior's stats in this series with the gloves show the worthlessness of catching stats for keepers. I reckon if I took the gloves for England then I'd have at least double the catches of Haddin for the series. Does that make me a better keeper, or even having a better series with the gloves? The last test series that Kamran Akmal played was against England last year in England. He had 17 catches from 3 games while Matt Prior had 12 catches and a stumping from 4 games. Who would you say had the better series as a keeper? Then note that the reason Kamran only played 3 tests was because he was dropped in the other test for ..... you guessed it ..... poor keeping. (Cricinfo article) Keeping stats are useless.

Haddin has had a better series than Prior. Prior has come in on flat tracks and made cheap runs in the last two tests, but has been ordinary until then. Haddin has been one of Australia's few winners, while Prior has played some pretty easy innings. Also, the idea that the number of catches constitutes a measure for a keeper's performance with the gloves complete crap. I don't think that Haddin is a great gloveman (neither is Prior, really), but the catching numbers are complete crap and mean nothing. Over the course of the series, Haddin has been presented with 9 chances while Prior has been presented with 24. Statistics, in themselves, mean nothing. It's the context that gives them meaning.